Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Abuse on the net (defence of Tom Duff)
Message-ID: <771@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 9-Feb-86 06:09:55 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.771
Posted: Sun Feb  9 06:09:55 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 06:35:11 EST
References: <2bc83cf6.917@apollo.uucp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Lines: 22

In article <2bc83cf6.917@apollo.uucp> johnf@apollo.uucp (John Francis) writes:
> ...
>If this is the Tom Duff that I think it is then he knows what he is
>talking about ...
> ...
>And before people start attacking ME for not knowing mathematics or
>computer science - I have a degree in mathematics from Cambridge
>University, and fourteen years experience in the computer industry.

I don't see how anyone can guess whether you know mathematics or not
-- you used NO mathematics in your article.  That is the trouble
with "appeal to authority" arguments.

If Duff said that (-a)/b = -(a/b) by definition, then he was wrong.
In the discussion to which he was contributing, integer (truncating)
division, and remainder vs. modulo, was the topic.  The "definition"
applies when one is talking about a field or division ring, but that
is not the case under discussion.  The "/" symbol does not mean the
same thing for integer division as it does for division of reals,
and indeed under the best choice of rules the above equation does
not hold.  I already posted a reference to Knuth, whose discussion
everyone should read before commenting further on this topic.